Hour Glass Half Full

One oft-repeated idea perceived as fact in popular culture refers to the ample figures women had in the 1950s as evidence of Post-War affluence, a reaction against the privation during war-time. Folks enjoy pointing to Marilyn Monroe’s zaftig form as the norm for the decade, when women boasted abundant cleavage and hips. More recently, commentators highlight Christina Hendricks’ figure as evocative of the era, as some sort of role model for girls to aspire to, even with Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone recently arguing that girls should emulate the actor’s size. All the autumn glossies trumpet the return of the 1950s style for heaving cleavage, nipped waist and full skirts. The Louis Vuitton line of corset dresses featuring Christie Turlington (pictured here) was the subject of much enthusiastic praise by the fashion doyennes. The September American edition of Vogue contains two articles on the 50s trend. Lynn Yaeger fails to reflect on the blisters and scars the garters mark Hendricks with; or Angela Lansbury’s complaints about the undergarments; or Rita Moreno reporting that the clothes from the era were ‘hideous and hateful.’ In another article Marc Jacobs explains his inspiration for the choice of models from Victoria Secret for the Vuitton collection came down to ‘ the bodies were the right bodies for the clothes.’ His aesthetic scale ranks clothes above the individual buxom women. Coupled with a report last month authenticating men’s supposed preference for the hour-glass type as a marker of physical attraction and beauty, the messages abound for women to pack on some flesh.

The problem with this sort of trend-setting is that it regards women as interchangeable assembly line objects rather than individual human beings. Garments should go in and out of fashion, not women’s bodies. I could no more have Hendricks’ figure than she could have my own hour glass half full form. Each age may herald an iconic shape for women according to the dictates of the media and popular culture, but women have never summarily conformed to the given silhouette touted for style, at least not since corsetry and boning went by the wayside. Women cannot instantly manipulate their body by bingeing themselves in order to fit an arbitrarily designated shape. And no one should suggest they should.

In the 1920s, celluloid celebrations of a flat-chested flapper were all the rage, yet Mae West flaunted a full figure and earned acclaim on the stage and then silver screen. Bette Davis’ film career began in the 1920s while she fulfilled a more classic hour-glass shape than the one credited to Marilyn Monroe thirty years later. Betty Grable in a swimsuit was the pin-up of choice among servicemen when she was a perfect hour glass as any of the peace-time ideals. In the 1960s, culture vultures identify Twiggy in a mini-shift as the iconic ideal when she was a contemporary of the buxom Raquel Welch.

Despite what you read, not all women in the 1950s cast the same shadow as Monroe. Audrey Hepburn was sylph-shaped in movies which no doubt grossed more than the baby-talking, lip-quivering platinum blonde at the box office. In the adaptation of Ira Levin’s noir A Kiss Before Dying (1956), all the women onscreen are willowy reeds. Joanne Woodward, Virginia Leith and Mary Astor look like the slender equivalents of a modern size 2 in suits and shirt dresses. Across a generational divide, each woman seems to sport a waistline a man could circle in his hands. The next time you read an article about the new silhouette or body type for women, cry bully and skip it.

14 Responses

I think the article oversimplifies the desire to be fashionable in both men and women. If we look back a few hundred years we see that men as often as not have been the victims of fashion: wigs, corsets, make up, breaches and so on. The principal object of fashion is to distinguish, although in mass culture today it is, as often, to conform. Every contributor to Anti-Room knows that when they look in the mirror they are shaping a statement of their personal identity. If women wish to look like an archetype Marilyn Monroe they can surely do so: she started out in life as a plain Jane and found herself to be photogenic. But it as equally obtainable to be an anti-figure of some kind. Personally, having been married to an actress for some years, I grew used to my wife arriving on the doorstep in a myriad of personas, red, green and auburn hair, vamp, intellectual, and a woman of mystery. As often or not I was oblged to live with various archetypes of the past at two month intervals. It wasn’t dull.

Indeed Megan! Well said. And well observed re the apparent stereotypes of the various eras..
We’re always being squashed into a new mould, even if it’s an old mould. Let’s remember that we don’t like mould though, old or new, not in the shower, not on our sandwiches, and certainly not when applied to our girlie bits.

Round of applause. We come in all sizes and shapes. The clothes we wear may change from generation to generation, but the diversity of human bodies ain’t going anywhere. Dieting or Binge Eating to attain a ‘fashionable’ body shape is as ridiculous as it is unhealthy.

@Charliechops1 – Not all women who wish to look like an archetypical Marilyn Monroe can do so. That’s a bizarre claim. I for one would need to get bum and breast implants. The point of this piece is that the onus on women to achieve a particular ‘fashionable’ body-shape is wrong-headed, and ignores the fact that bodies are diverse. It isn’t an article that decries the desire to be fashionable in men or women.

Who says it is wrong-headed? There are many women who find it difficult, mentally, to live naturally within the bodies they are born in or the shapes that their way of life creates – to say nothing of their sex. Women do sometimes have boob jobs and operations to deal with obesity are commonplace (you can get them free through the NHS). Of course a naturally thin women who wishes to look like Marilyn Monroe is deluded; but she might prefer – rationally- to look like someone else. You might argue that grossly fat women who slim themselves down to look more attractive are opting for a healthier life-style as are very thin women who put on a little weight . The argument in this article is simplistic and dogmatic. It is very arguable that extremes of fashion are absurd. But you, any woman in my family, and I guess those of other contributors, do not live at the extremes of fashion. Fashion archetypes are dreams and few of us realise our dreams. These extreme dreams have little to do with sexuality and much more with how we come to terms with ourselves. There is a simple solution for all who care about this – apart from living in a sane society – don’t read fashion magazines. Shame on you!

Charlie, clothing style can change, but women’s bodies on the other hands should not be at the whim of designers. Clothes should fit women.

Poethead, sideshow indeed. Folks should refrain from telling girls and women what their bodies should look like.

Jennie, well hello there! Hope you’re keeping well. The bully squad sure do like berating women to be one size or the other. In the Vogue article, Marc Jacobs openly admits how arbitrary dictates over body size are and admits that the ‘curvy’ trend may not even last to next season.

Demure Lemur, yep, and keep in mind that Monroe had tons of plastic surgery, including breast implants.

I have never been accused of paternalism. Thank you for that. Following Hegel I usually look for an opposite. I guess, infantile or immature! What I know is that retailers today cater for every conceivable taste and that in practice women and men can buy anything that suits them – and they do.

This trend will bypass me as I will never have an hour glass figure, and no amount of foundation garment or weight adding/removing will change that. (if I put on weight it goes straight on the middle section, think apple not glass).
But reading this it strikes me that it is almost impossible to be just right any more. Take Nigella Lawson, curvy, educated, great cook, she was just right. Then she popped on a few more pounds and hey presto chango the Daily Fail were posting unflattering photos of her and practically calling her a porker. Jessica Simpson is the same, she puts on a few pounds, still looks terrific but acres of space were churned up last week over her supposed heftiness. Kelly Clarkson, Kelly Osbourne, Angelina is too thin now, Demi Moore is ‘just right’– I know because she posted up shots of her in her bathroom– but for how long? Oh for how long?
Doesn’t it just wear you down? Like we have to be Goldigals and stay ‘just right’ to maintain our value. So ‘just right’ this season is hour glass? That’s me out so.
Meh. Feh, Double Meh.

“More recently, commentators highlight Christina Hendricks’ figure as evocative of the era, as some sort of role model for girls to aspire to, even with Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone recently arguing that girls should emulate the actor’s size.”

What a terrible thing for her to say! So instead of naturally curvy women feeling inadequate, she wants the naturally skinny ones to feel inadequate!

So very true. Every time I read an article in a women’s magazine that has a headline “breasts are back” I heave a huge sigh! My breasts never went anywhere! Fashion and trends may change but women’s bodies are not trend-led and the sooner magazines realise this the better off we’ll all be!

I had the opportunity yesterday of discussing contemporary fashion trends for women with a senior sales executive of Next. This is what he said:
John, there is a change in judgements within the retail trade about customer mix for two reasons: women are getting fatter and there is a shift in the money from teenagers and young women to older customers. The two categories are related. We wish to sell to fatter, older women. (Apparently over 30 percent of American women and 20 percent of English are obese). All women are entitled to look good and fashionable and we have no wish to disappoint them. If you are size 14-20 it is pointless for a retailer to display only goods for the super thin. The way to do this is to be clever. Don’t sell sacks, allow for bigger breasts and bums and pinch in the waist. Of course it is best not to be obese or old.

Arlene, I wish Demi had opted out of posting the shot. We get it lady, you’re hot.

Shane, folks love telling women what they should do with their bodies whether it’s feed or starve them, how they should dress, how they should have sex and with whom, etc. Every pregnant woman I know talked about how they were manhandled like public property and lectured about what to do. This story is old.

Hah, Alex, isn’t it nice when they ‘let’ you have rights to your body. I think the most repulsive of this sort of thing occurs over at the Daily Hate Mail where they abbreviate every woman’s body to the presence or lack of ‘curves.’

Charlie, I haven’t shopped at Next in ages but thanks, I’ll be sure to keep away for good now.

‘Of course it is best not to be obese or old.’
So all us oldies and fatties should cease to exist?
We just clutter up the place?
What a hateful comment.